Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

sage.geometry: Add some # optional, reformat doctests #35586

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
May 28, 2023

Conversation

mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor

@mkoeppe mkoeppe commented Apr 30, 2023

📚 Description

Update # optional, PEP 8 fixes for doctests, reformat/align # optional.
Taken from (and tested with) current #35095

Part of:

📝 Checklist

  • The title is concise, informative, and self-explanatory.
  • The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
  • I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
  • I have created tests covering the changes.
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly.

⌛ Dependencies

sage: p600 = polytopes.six_hundred_cell(exact=True) # not tested - very long time # optional - sage.groups
sage: len(list(p600.bounded_edges())) # not tested - very long time # optional - sage.groups
sage: p600 = polytopes.six_hundred_cell(exact=True) # not tested - very long time, optional - sage.groups
sage: len(list(p600.bounded_edges())) # not tested - very long time, optional - sage.groups
720
Copy link
Collaborator

@kwankyu kwankyu May 23, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Now we have two formats # ... # optional - ..., # ..., optional - ... for the same thing?

I prefer the second format (changed mind after second look).

So, OK.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm using the second format here because there were no alignment opportunities.

@kwankyu
Copy link
Collaborator

kwankyu commented May 23, 2023

Otherwise, except Build & Test, it looks good to me.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 24, 2023

Now tests are passing

@@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ def _contains(self, point, region='whole cone'):
sage: c = Cone([(1,0), (0,1)])
sage: c._contains((1,I)) # optional - sage.symbolic
False
sage: c._contains(vector(QQbar, [1,I])) # optional - sage.symbolic
sage: c._contains(vector(QQbar, [1,I])) # optional - sage.rings.number_field
False
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Don't you need both?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You are right, thanks.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed in 2be9942

Copy link
Collaborator

@kwankyu kwankyu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks.

@mkoeppe
Copy link
Contributor Author

mkoeppe commented May 24, 2023

Thanks for reviewing!

@github-actions
Copy link

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit 2be9942) is ready! 🎉

@vbraun vbraun merged commit bec5da3 into sagemath:develop May 28, 2023
@mkoeppe mkoeppe added this to the sage-10.1 milestone May 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants